On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:12:48 +0000, druck  declaimed the
following:


>Speech synthesis, as opposed to speech recognition, is not very
>processor intensive. The synthetic ones require the most computation,
>and the natural voice ones are more dependent on memory bandwidth and
>storage latency.
>
>We were able to run many synths on 200MHz iPaq StrongARM PDAs and had
>all the big name synthetic and natural voice synthesisers running on
>easily on early 400MHz XScale Windows CE mobile phones. Even a Pi1
>wouldn't have problems running those, and I suspect should also be able
>to cope with the latest versions.
>

 The 8MHz Commodore Amiga used to have translator (converted normal text
to encoded phonemes [numeric intonation data and conversion of "c" to "s"
or "k" as appropriate) and narrator device. However, I think they lost the
distribution license for the libraries by the time of AmigaOS 3. The
synthesizer device had the ability to return height and width data to a
running program, intended, I'm sure, to allow the program to animate a
mouth to match the syllables.


--
 Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
 wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05